The authors start from the so called Einstein-Cartan-Evans (ECE) field theory and compute certain consequences of it. Therefore I will first address the question whether the ECE-theory is a legitimate starting point for a theory in physics. The authors refer to more than a dozen own publications and it is not easy to see which one is relevant for defining the ECE-theory in an unambiguous way. The editor send me a pdf-file with the title “The spinning and curving of spacetime: The electromagnetic and gravitational fields in the Evans unified field theory” and by M.W. Evans. Obviously, it is published in Found. Phys. Lett. 18 (2005) 431-454.

I will take this paper for getting an idea what the ECE-theory is all about:

It is the analogous as with the paper to referee: More than over 90% of the references are to own papers. This seems to point to a splendid self-isolation. Going through the paper, it is obvious that the starting point of the paper is a Riemann-Cartan geometry of spacetime. Such a geometry features in the well-known viable Einstein-Cartan theory of gravitation, see Gronwald et al. or Trautman, for example. No reference to the Einstein-Cartan theory can be found in the paper of Evans. This is perhaps not so important. But had the author studied papers of the Einstein-Cartan theory better, then he would have noticed that some of his assumptions contradict simple geometrical of physical facts.

1) Already in the abstract we learn that “electromagnetism is the spinning of spacetime”. In the text, on p.3, this is made still clearer: “…electromagnetism in known experimentally to be a spin phenomenon”. Both statements are, to say the least, without any physical foundation.

From the context it is clear that the author has in mind the Einstein-Cartan theory. In this consistent framework, the energy-momentum of matter is related to the curvature and the spin of matter to the torsion of a Riemann-Cartan spacetime. What the author does essentially, is to substitute in a complete ad hoc manner the spin of matter by the electromagnetic field. Then, of course, electromagnetism couples to torsion. However, in the Einstein-Cartan theory we have a closely knit Lagrange-Noether formalism that allows to derive the field equations form a variational principle, nothing like this is possible in the ECE ansatz. The mentioned substitution is illegitimate and no nice words can be a substitute for a variational principle.

2) What the author calls his fundamental equations are just the definitions of torsion and curvature, respectively, and the corresponding Bianchi identities for a space with vanishing nonmetricity (Riemann-Cartan space). Of course, these equations only become linked to physics by certain additional assumptions. This additional assumption is Evan’s ansatz in his Eq.(12). Suddenly an electromagnetic potential A emerges for no reason whatsoever. Why this potential should have anything to do with geometry, is not shown. What the author basically does, is to identify, apart from a factor, the coframe 1-forms of the Riemann-Cartan spacetime with the electromagnetic potential. This doesn’t make sense in physics.

All the rest of the theory, follows from this brute force ansatz (12). As stated, this ansatz has no justification nor did the author try to give one.

Clearly, with such procedures one cannot develop a valid physical theory. It is also clear why the author didn’t formulate a variational principle that would allow him to get at least consistent field equations. It is just not possible.

There is no doubt in my mind that the ECE-field theory has nothing to do with physics. For that reason I suggest to reject this paper.

Thanks for finding a referee! Unfortunately this is so obviously a hostile personal attack that I request the paper to be re-refereeed, for example by members of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences which has resoundingly accepted ECE theory recently with high praise (szabo.judit] at [akkrt.hu). The referee is just mis-using anonymity in order to be grossly irrational. In any event the paper is widely read worldwide, and accepted by the colleagues, and will be published elsehere. The detailed rebuttal for the record is as follows.

1) The formulae are legible to everyone except the referee. 2) Cartan himself suggested the basic ansatz to Einstein. 3) The nature of the references is not a legitimate scientific point of criticism. 4) The referee does not even understand that this is a unified field theory. 5) There are no contradictions with geometrical facts because ECE theory is Cartan geometry itself. 6) Tha basic ANSATZ is that electromagnetism is the spinning of space-time. Natural philosophy demands that this postulate be tested experimentally, and this has been accepted procedure for several hundred years. The ECE theory reduces to all the major equations of physics and has been well tested expereimntally. The ansatz is therefore legitimate. 7) The lagrangian of ECE theory is available on http://www.aias.us – the referee is not even aware of this. It is also available in M. W. Evans, “Generally Covariant Unified Field Theory” (Abramis 2005 and 2006), together with the Euler Lagrange equation that produces the Cartan geometry. The Noether Theorem has also been well developed in the context of ECE theory, in which over one hundred papers and books are available. The referee ignores this literature completely. Also, a lagrangian method does not supplant in any way the basic Baconian philosophy. Any method can be used as long as it is tested experimentally. 8) The electromagnetic potential and field are linked by the first Cartan structure equation, so the proportionality consatnt A(0) must be the same, mathematically, for potential and field. The referee subjectively asserts that this ansatz cannot be made. If one cannot make an ansatz, then physics cannot proceed as a subject.

So in summary the referee has just set out to subjectively attack a theory that has been already accepted worldwide. The referee has made no counter arguments, all his remarks are assertions. This brings into question the validity of the anonymous review process. Effectively it has already been replaced by actual peer usage, i.e. ECE theory is already used worldwide, and that is the legitimate refereeing process, not a crude personal attack by a biased individual.

Cordially Yours,

Porf. Myron W. Evans,

Chief Scientific Advisor National Assembly of Wales, British and Commownealth Civil List Scientist.